Billy Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 It came up on his rotation of cut-and-paste gotchas...nothing more than that.Give us your answer, was Mr. Hinckley being forthcoming with his answer in your opinion?
Daniel Peterson Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 careful readers may have noted that DP has inadvertently admitted to knowing everything about church history, mesoamerican archaeology and ancient Egypt when he was 17.I realize that MM was writing with tongue-in-cheek, but, since stuff like this tends to take on a weird life of its own when it's about me, I suppose I need to go on record as denying having ever said any such thing.Consider it now done, and on record.
ttribe Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Give us your answer, was Mr. Hinckley being forthcoming with his answer in your opinion?As forthcoming as was necessary...and Billy, I've given my answer on this before. Go search it yourself.
Billy Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 As forthcoming as was necessary...and Billy, I've given my answer on this before. Go search it yourself.Can't you see how some people would take his comments as deceptive? He couched his words in such a way that gave plausible deniability to this specific doctrine of the LDS church. " I don't know that we teach it." he states. If the prophet does not know, one who is suppose to talk to God, then who would know?
Jeff K. Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Was Jesus being purposely deceptive in regard to explaining his doctrine or not?
Billy Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Was Jesus being purposely deceptive in regard to explaining his doctrine or not?No, but his was true.
Jeff K. Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 In fact Christ only answered so far as he needed to, no more no less. Much like President Hinckley did in the aforementioned question.
Billy Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 In fact Christ only answered so far as he needed to, no more no less. Much like President Hinckley did in the aforementioned question. " I don't know that we teach it." Is this a completely truthful answer?
Billy Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 In fact Christ only answered so far as he needed to, no more no less. Much like President Hinckley did in the aforementioned question.Or how about this statement by Joseph Smith, is this completely truthful?Joseph Smith". . .Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."LDS History of the Church 6:411 May 1844
Daniel Peterson Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 " I don't know that we teach it." Is this a completely truthful answer?Let's discuss this again!I think President Hinckley fumbled the answer just a tiny bit, but I don't think he was being untruthful.We don't teach it much. I've seldom heard the doctrine mentioned in General Conference or in sacrament meeting, and not even very commonly in Gospel Doctrine classes. And, even when it's mentioned, we don't go into many details about it, because we don't know many details about it.I think that's what he was saying. And he was exactly right.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I know it is a rule, and I ALWAYS wore a white shirt and a tie when I was on my mission, but to be honest I still do not know when this rule started, who made up this rule, and if this rule was inspired by God. Please fill me in on the details, I would be interested in knowing.do you remember the white bible?That was written by the 1st presidency and was said to be the same as scripture. I dont know when white shirts was added but it was a rule in the missinoary handbook. Come on you should know that.
Zakuska Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Or how about this statement by Joseph Smith, is this completely truthful?Joseph Smith". . .Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."LDS History of the Church 6:411 May 1844As far as the law was concerned it was 100% true.Since none of the other "wives" or "husbands" were "sealed" to Joseph Smith by the Authority of the Land.Tell us Billy... was this "completely Truthful"?Matt 2774 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the **** crew.Can you Imagine one of our Modern Apostles... Cursing and Swearing and Telling Lies!
Billy Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Let's discuss this again!I think President Hinckley fumbled the answer just a tiny bit, but I don't think he was being untruthful.We don't teach it much. I've seldom heard the doctrine mentioned in General Conference or in sacrament meeting, and not even very commonly in Gospel Doctrine classes. And, even when it's mentioned, we don't go into many details about it, because we don't know many details about it.I think that's what he was saying. And he was exactly right.I understand you point of view. But if LDS believe that God was once a man, why didn't Gordon Hinckley just acknowledge the fact and then move on rather then give an answer that at minimum was concealing of the true LDS doctrine. Hinckley was an excellent public speaker, and he rarely--if ever--fumbled his words.
Billy Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 As far as the law was concerned it was 100% true.Since none of the other "wives" or "husbands" were "sealed" to Joseph Smith by the Authority of the Land.Tell us Billy... was this "completely Truthful"?Again, can't you see how this can be deceptive, especially when he WAS married to other women. In reality his statement is really a lie. (His marriages can be verified at the familysearch.org website)
ttribe Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Again, can't you see how this can be deceptive, especially when he WAS married to other women. In reality his statement is really a lie. (His marriages can be verified at the familysearch.org website)Countdown to this devolving into a fight over the difference between "sealed" and "married"...5...4...3...
AmorLibertas Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 No, your lack of rigor in both the spiritual and intellectual reflects your shortcoming. Its your agency and your right to choose. Breast feeding usually stops a few months after you are born, after a while you need to learn to feed yourself.Translation: Don't blame the missionaries for only giving you milk. You should have been searching for meat on your own before you were baptized.I told you where to look. And yet, you couldn't even think to ask people. Was it that unimportant to you? Your excuses for not taking responsibility for your life and your own actions are extraordinary to say the least. You place your entire philosophy of life in the hands of a 19 year old missionary and then blame them for not breast feeding you all the information you need. Its almost pathetic.Translation: When one person deceives another person, it's not the person doing the deceiving who is in the wrong, it is the one being deceived. Always blame the victim. Caveat Emptor.You might have been a gullible 19 year old, but now you are a responsibility dodging, older person who will grasp any excuse other than their own shortcomings. And when someone else who was 16 at the time steps up and tells you what they were doing at the time, you suddenly find it "hard to believe".Translation: All people have the same degree of access and skepticism. The only reason why you were deceived is that you were lazy.The first thing you should do is splash some cold water on yourself, then mature and maybe face the responsibility that you are responsible for your decisions and stop looking for excuses that someone else is at fault. Even in the 1970's there was plenty of opinion and information (especially during the attempted passing of the ERA). What you offer is not even a good excuse.Translation: there is no excuse for a person being deceived. Anyone who is deceived in light of all the freely available information they might not know about or be aware of or even think to examine is simply gullible and lazy and is not justified in crying foul because the Church conveniently left out potentially embarrassing facts about its history and doctrines in the haste to convert and baptize new members.For your benefit:The "hard time" is of your own making, not the missionaries.Translation: Don't blame the Missionaries for deceiving you, it's your own d*** fault.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I understand you point of view. But if LDS believe that God was once a man, why didn't Gordon Hinckley just acknowledge the fact and then move on rather then give an answer that at minimum was concealing of the true LDS doctrine. Hinckley was an excellent public speaker, and he rarely--if ever--fumbled his words.Perhaps, in your interviews with the national media, you've always expressed yourself with perfect precision, and have never had occasion, afterwards, to wish that you had expressed yourself better.I've sometimes misspoken, though. And I suspect that others have, as well.
HMX-1 Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 This is a sincere question for those who left the church because you felt that the church hid something from you, or who advocate the church be more forthcoming about what you consider the negatives. Assuming you were able to learn these things sooner, what difference would it have made on whether you left the church or not. I don't see how it makes any difference if some of the things that turn you away from the church are learned earlier or later. Perhaps you can explain it.The problem isn't the Church or it's Doctrine, they are both Solid Gold! The problem lies within the Hypocritical, elitist members who think they are better than non-members. Members don't leave the Gospel or the Doctrine, they leave because of the people.. It's about your relationship with our Savior, not anyone else. But like alot of fine organizations, unfortunately people ruin it! God Bless ya!
Billy Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Countdown to this devolving into a fight over the difference between "sealed" and "married"...5...4...3...Again a deceptive tactic, are you saying that Joseph had only one wife in 1844?
Zakuska Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Again, can't you see how this can be deceptive, especially when he WAS married to other women. In reality his statement is really a lie. (His marriages can be verified at the familysearch.org website)Why didn't you answer my question? Was Peter Being Deceptive?Ive been to family Search and Ive seen the records. I wonder why none of his "Marriages" to other men are catalog there?
ttribe Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Again a deceptive tactic, are you saying that Joseph had only one wife in 1844?Just to be clear, before I answer you, are you calling me a liar, or JS?
Daniel Peterson Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 The problem isn't the Church or it's Doctrine, they are both Solid Gold! The problem lies within the Hypocritical, elitist members who think they are better than non-members. Members don't leave the Gospel or the Doctrine, they leave because of the people.. It's about your relationship with our Savior, not anyone else. But like alot of fine organizations, unfortunately people ruin it! God Bless ya! I know a very large number of good people in the Church -- certainly much better than I am -- and I don't feel very comfortable with sweeping negative judgments of the Church membership.
Teancum Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 Apparently you do care. No I don't care that you think you need to call it as you see it. I note it just so others can see hubris in actionAnd it is truthful regardless of your own opinion.No it is not truth. It is false. I would suggest that you realm of experience at least currently is insufficient to opine on the sincerity or lack there of about someone's own spiritual journey away from a faith they truly loves and believed. Were someones to treat you the way you are treating beastie over your testimony of the LDS Church you would no doubt bristle.Everypoint I raised has been legitimate even if the package its wrapped in isn't with the nicest bow.No not really. I don't talk of the loss of faith as if it is some kind of cosmic accident she didn't see coming. Beastie chose to let go or lose her faith on step at a time, she chose the path she is on.No not really. That is not how she describes it. And since you are not in her shoes you cannot know this. Again, if she questioned the validity of your spiritual experiences I submit you would have a fit.And then like some spoilt child she blames others for the path she took, and claims betrayal when every choice made, in all those situations were her choices and no one elses.The only blame or compliant I see her making is that the Church is not open about difficult historical issues. This is a simple fact. And at least when she joined resources were not readily available to do a thorough due diligence. Perhaps now they are what with the internet and all. But still, the LDS proselyting process does not encourage this at all. Missionaries typically are pushed to baptize people quickly by teaching the basics, getting the investigator to feel the spirit and get a testimony then get baptized. This is how we did it when I was a missionary. All they needed to know was that JS was a prophet and commit to the commandments and all the rest would fall into place. I don't see a whole lot of difference today.One wonders when people will mature and take responsibility for their own actions. Even years later its still somebody elses fault.One wonders what fosters such a condemning and harsh attitude.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 do you remember the white bible?That was written by the 1st presidency and was said to be the same as scripture. I dont know when white shirts was added but it was a rule in the missinoary handbook. Come on you should know that.BillyI just want to be perfectly clear here. I take it that you know what I am talking about here??
Teancum Posted March 20, 2009 Posted March 20, 2009 I guess that's an example of how different people come to different conclusions because I find her story full of holes, although I'm sure she sincerely believes it.What were her holes? She told her story. You think she is lying? How is her personal testimony so to speak any different or less valid than your faith journey? Is it because you think you know the Church is true and she concluded that it is not?I think it's a little condescending to reference "someone like beastie" who you apparently feel can't handle the criticism. If that is the case she really shouldn't be on forums like this, but as far as I can see she's pretty well able to express herself and stand up to the jabs.I am simply discussing the post and amazed at the hostility some posters seem to have in dealing with someone who seemed to honestly come to a different conclusion than others. I don't view beastie as a hero. But I personally have concluded that people can and do come to honest reasons for leaving the church. They did not do anything wrong, did not look for reasons not to believe. Indeed as beastie noted, they often want to believe, want to keep what is unraveling and the experience is heart wrenching. But beastie's posts and some of the resulting hostility seem symptomatic of much of what this discussion board seems to be about at times.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.